The Imbalance of Press-State Relations in the United States
- Alye
- Oct 2, 2017
- 2 min read
Is it always culturally acceptable or reasonable for journalists to grant government officials a privileged voice in the news? These exceptions can cause social voices to be warped or skewed based upon the ideologies expressed. This broad latitude creates boundaries that cause public debate. This concern creates an enduring need for direct accountability to ensure the whims and passions of the mass public are met.
The press plays a large role in making sure that voices are considered for the national interest. This “democratic watchdog” is a legacy that must be kept alive. Understanding the balance of these voices is a key hypothesis to understand the political order in the United States. There needs to be an interplay of power, state priorities, and national elections. This system needs to work well to represent popular sentiments on prevalent views in areas such as national security, foreign policy, or abortion. The press becomes the “keeper of the official record” and must raise an independent “voice of the people” among all appropriate circumstances.
Academic literature and societal voices are admitted into journalistic accounts to be used as “credible” news sources. This “special coverage” allows for normative order and independent connotations to be utilized during policy debates. These social voices in the news are vary in issue and their narrowing focus ranges. This variation must be explained to ensure that the official debate varies the width of the journalistic gate. Chaos breeds a decline in the “official” narrative structure. The goal is to distill a practical explanation of press-government relations.
The conscious indexing of journalists’ vocabulary determines the language of democracy. Public opinion is responsible for the best approximation of bedrock political reality. How do journalists report problems with what the government says and allow for people to voice their own opinions? A passive press is becoming the “new” American democracy shifting these journalistic responsibilities to the overwhelming growth of the mass digital press. Everyone can create opinions or add to the overall rhetoric shared changing the traditional journalism organization. The best payoff in this changing approach will be understanding how the value systems (liberal democracy, digital platform, and corporate capitalism) can work to shape the practices at an agreeable intersection.
Legitimate concern and public certainty vary across all branches of the government. During large shifts or votes within Congress; different editorial players acted in correlated agendas. This “responsible press” operated in an irresponsible manner highlighting a narrow or distorted public opinion. Congressional support or opposition shaped the pattern of media from issue to issue or one political solution to another. Clean opinions are no longer divided and institutional power blocs leave journalists with little common guidance in developing a story.
Simplicity throughout the introduction of a complex business or political spectrum structures a broad range of issues. The “media monopoly” can be explained by a common norm to accommodate interests and ideologies throughout diverse locations in the system. Change triggers all relations that media engages. Media must avoid becoming defined by the most current government in power and be a voice of reason for the public's they represent.
Comments